Tyndmyr wrote:The government does use overt shows of force as a threat. Individuals are checked by government force, and therefore, are at much lower risk, particularly when doing a demonstration(police are often right there if someone goes too far). The guy demonstrating for a legal change isn't likely to ignore the law. He still cares about what the law is.

And in the case of the latter, the last thing he wants to do is anything that would encourage more strict laws from being written.

In any group you're going to have bozos... there are people who openly carry and use that to intimidate others; but they tend to make that obvious in their overall behavior.

Generally speaking, criminals and others who intend actual harm prefer not to draw attention to themselves; so they're more prone to carry concealed. A large part of the reason handguns far outnumber rifles in crime is because they're concealable; it doesn't benefit a criminal to advertise beforehand. Carrying openly attracts attention and increases the odds that people are going to be watching.

Tyndmyr wrote:People who don't care about the law, or feel themselves above it are far more concerning. Police without effective checks and balances. Military in the hands of a poor leader. Organized crime.

If something is not intended as a threat, and does not actually pose a threat, you probably ought not interpret it as one.

If I go to visit my neighbour to complain about his dog barking late at night, and I happen to have an M-16 strapped to my back, I do not think it would be unreasonable for my neighbour to assume the subtext of that interaction is "I'm going to shoot your dog if you don't stop this". Every interaction you make is going to be affected when you are explicitly demonstrating your capacity for violence.

Mental health is on the check when you purchase a firearm. It's true that a great many states and federal organizations are garbage at properly collecting and sharing mental health data so that it does get checked, but that's not really the fault of the individual gun owner. The assumption of mental unsoundness seems particularly strange for political displays. When has a gun-rights political display turned into gun violence?

It's not the fault of the gun owner, no. But it makes it a safety issue for everyone else. I can't assume that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding because there is no way to verify this, and if I'm wrong about their intentions, then I'm probably dead. Therefore, the only safe assumption is that people who are carrying firearms are extremely dangerous and should be treated as such. I'm not talking specifically about political displays here; I'm talking about people openly carrying firearms generally.

Tyndmyr wrote:People who don't care about the law, or feel themselves above it are far more concerning. Police without effective checks and balances. Military in the hands of a poor leader. Organized crime.

If something is not intended as a threat, and does not actually pose a threat, you probably ought not interpret it as one.

If I go to visit my neighbour to complain about his dog barking late at night, and I happen to have an M-16 strapped to my back, I do not think it would be unreasonable for my neighbour to assume the subtext of that interaction is "I'm going to shoot your dog if you don't stop this". Every interaction you make is going to be affected when you are explicitly demonstrating your capacity for violence.

There is a place for tact and consideration, yes. However, if no specific threats are made, merely having the capability of doing something might not be a threat. Much of this revolves around how you go about the interaction. If you are showing off your gun, and speculating as to what trouble a barking dog could get into, then sure, he's well within his rights to maybe give the cops a call.

But possession of a firearm while buying a soda at walmart does not indicate you have any particular intent to pose a threat.

It's not the fault of the gun owner, no. But it makes it a safety issue for everyone else. I can't assume that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding because there is no way to verify this, and if I'm wrong about their intentions, then I'm probably dead. Therefore, the only safe assumption is that people who are carrying firearms are extremely dangerous and should be treated as such. I'm not talking specifically about political displays here; I'm talking about people openly carrying firearms generally.

The world is not safe, just about anyone can kill you if they want to, and you can't positively verify that none of them do. This is just how life is. However, people mostly do not wish to murder others, and if they do, they mostly murder people they know, not strangers. Your risk from a stranger you just met, be it carrying a firearm, driving a car, or doing whatever else humans do that has the capacity for harm, is extremely low.

Your "only safe assumption" is exactly the opposite of what everyone else does all the time, and appears extremely irrational.

Someone open carrying a firearm, as per those pictures above, is almost certainly not a threat. They are probably less dangerous than anyone else, as openly advertising you have a firearm does not go well with successful criminal behavior. There isn't any sort of crime wave starting with open carry people, on what basis do you describe them as "extremely dangerous"?

Tyndmyr wrote:People who don't care about the law, or feel themselves above it are far more concerning. Police without effective checks and balances. Military in the hands of a poor leader. Organized crime.

If something is not intended as a threat, and does not actually pose a threat, you probably ought not interpret it as one.

If I go to visit my neighbour to complain about his dog barking late at night, and I happen to have an M-16 strapped to my back, I do not think it would be unreasonable for my neighbour to assume the subtext of that interaction is "I'm going to shoot your dog if you don't stop this". Every interaction you make is going to be affected when you are explicitly demonstrating your capacity for violence.

There is a place for tact and consideration, yes. However, if no specific threats are made, merely having the capability of doing something might not be a threat. Much of this revolves around how you go about the interaction. If you are showing off your gun, and speculating as to what trouble a barking dog could get into, then sure, he's well within his rights to maybe give the cops a call.

Er, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. By showing to up in a normal social interaction while in possession of a firearm, you are creating an implicit threat to the person you are talking to.

Someone open carrying a firearm, as per those pictures above, is almost certainly not a threat. They are probably less dangerous than anyone else, as openly advertising you have a firearm does not go well with successful criminal behavior. There isn't any sort of crime wave starting with open carry people, on what basis do you describe them as "extremely dangerous"?

They're carrying a deadly weapon and there's a decent chance that they've never been trained to use or carry it safely. Even if they aren't intending to use it violently, there's a risk of accidental discharge. Or, perhaps they're one of the 1.6% of gun owners with significant anger of impulse control problems that carry their weapons outside the home.

LaserGuy wrote:Er, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. By showing to up in a normal social interaction while in possession of a firearm, you are creating an implicit threat to the person you are talking to.

I think showing up to a confrontation is rather different than showing up anywhere else. Particularly if it looks like you're packing the gun specifically for this visit. The dog thing could easily be threatening, if done wrong.

But showing up to walmart, not really.

Someone open carrying a firearm, as per those pictures above, is almost certainly not a threat. They are probably less dangerous than anyone else, as openly advertising you have a firearm does not go well with successful criminal behavior. There isn't any sort of crime wave starting with open carry people, on what basis do you describe them as "extremely dangerous"?

They're carrying a deadly weapon and there's a decent chance that they've never been trained to use or carry it safely. Even if they aren't intending to use it violently, there's a risk of accidental discharge. Or, perhaps they're one of the 1.6% of gun owners with significant anger of impulse control problems that carry their weapons outside the home.

Very few people die due to accidental discharges. Of those that do, the most common victims are the gun owners or their household members. A gun simply being carried is not going to do much of anything. This is of negligible threat to you.

If you hold that the anger problems you believe open carriers to have(despite the lack of an explicit link between those groups specifically) poses a threat, then certainly you have statistics to back up that assumption? How frequently does an openly carried gun get used for violence?

Tyndmyr wrote:People who don't care about the law, or feel themselves above it are far more concerning. Police without effective checks and balances. Military in the hands of a poor leader. Organized crime.

If something is not intended as a threat, and does not actually pose a threat, you probably ought not interpret it as one.

If I go to visit my neighbour to complain about his dog barking late at night, and I happen to have an M-16 strapped to my back, I do not think it would be unreasonable for my neighbour to assume the subtext of that interaction is "I'm going to shoot your dog if you don't stop this". Every interaction you make is going to be affected when you are explicitly demonstrating your capacity for violence.

Certainly, carrying a rifle when confronting a neighbor adds a certain something; which is why it'd be best to leave the M-16 at home for that conversation. Same is true if you're openly carrying a knife, or handgun, or any other weapon. Part of responsible carry is knowing where and when it's not appropriate.

It's not the fault of the gun owner, no. But it makes it a safety issue for everyone else. I can't assume that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding because there is no way to verify this, and if I'm wrong about their intentions, then I'm probably dead.

Any random person you see on the street could potentially be carrying a concealed firearm; are they more or less dangerous than the guy carrying openly?

Therefore, the only safe assumption is that people who are carrying firearms are extremely dangerous and should be treated as such. I'm not talking specifically about political displays here; I'm talking about people openly carrying firearms generally.

Again, maybe it comes down to familiarity, but I simply don't find it threatening if the person is behaving in a reasonable, responsible manner. People who have criminal intent tend to prefer to avoid drawing attention to themselves... attention is detrimental toward not getting caught. Openly carrying a weapon draws attention, even from people who aren't necessarily threatened by it.

Tyndmyr wrote:Very few people die due to accidental discharges. Of those that do, the most common victims are the gun owners or their household members. A gun simply being carried is not going to do much of anything. This is of negligible threat to you.

The number of deaths due to accidental discharge is somewhere around 600 per year. I can't find anything specific on injuries, but typically you'd expect a log-scaling for hazard risk, so it's probably somewhere in the range of 6000 for serious injuries and 60000 for minor injuries. It's not a lot, but it's not trivial either. This also appears to be significantly under-reported.

If you hold that the anger problems you believe open carriers to have(despite the lack of an explicit link between those groups specifically) poses a threat, then certainly you have statistics to back up that assumption? How frequently does an openly carried gun get used for violence?

I've already linked it to you. Specifically: 19% of the general population have anger or impulse control issues. A third of the population are gun owners. About 10% of the population are both gun owners and have anger issues, and about 2% of the population carry their guns on a regular basis and have anger issues. People who own large numbers of guns (>6) are significantly more likely to be in the "carry a gun regularly and have anger issues" group, and also have much higher risk of a variety of other potential mental health issues including depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse, etc.

cphite wrote:Any random person you see on the street could potentially be carrying a concealed firearm; are they more or less dangerous than the guy carrying openly?

Yes, concealed carry has pretty much all of the same problems except for the aggressive intimidation factor, and should be regulated in much the same manner.

Tyndmyr wrote:Very few people die due to accidental discharges. Of those that do, the most common victims are the gun owners or their household members. A gun simply being carried is not going to do much of anything. This is of negligible threat to you.

The number of deaths due to accidental discharge is somewhere around 600 per year. I can't find anything specific on injuries, but typically you'd expect a log-scaling for hazard risk, so it's probably somewhere in the range of 6000 for serious injuries and 60000 for minor injuries. It's not a lot, but it's not trivial either. This also appears to be significantly under-reported.

There are only 73k firearm injuries/year for the US total, so accidental ones should not be so high. For perspective, against that 600 accidental deaths, we have total deaths of about 33,600(2013 numbers). Log scaling does not appear at all accurate. Instead, all injuries are about 2x deaths, rather than 100x.

[

quote]If you hold that the anger problems you believe open carriers to have(despite the lack of an explicit link between those groups specifically) poses a threat, then certainly you have statistics to back up that assumption? How frequently does an openly carried gun get used for violence?

I've already linked it to you. Specifically: 19% of the general population have anger or impulse control issues. A third of the population are gun owners. About 10% of the population are both gun owners and have anger issues, and about 2% of the population carry their guns on a regular basis and have anger issues. People who own large numbers of guns (>6) are significantly more likely to be in the "carry a gun regularly and have anger issues" group, and also have much higher risk of a variety of other potential mental health issues including depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse, etc.[/quote]

Does it lead to them actually shooting random people while open carrying? Does the supposed problem of "guy snaps, starts shooting those nearby" actually occur?

This is an aside, but I love how dickish some of the open carry laws are to businesses who want to choose to exercise their property rights and not allow guns on the premises.

The Atlantic wrote: Consider the Quakers of Live Oak Friends Meeting in Houston. As committed pacifists who generally deplore guns, the Friends debated for months about whether and how to respond to open-carry laws. To effectively ban guns under the new law, the Quakers would have to plaster their place of worship with signage, defacing a building that is literally a work of art—a James Turrell skyspace.

[...]

To keep out both open and concealed guns, the Friends would need to post a whopping 40 signs. Texas law specifies one-inch-tall letters, with text in English and Spanish. Any deviation from the exact language provided (even correcting the spelling errors in the state’s Spanish translation) might invalidate a sign, a caveat that licensed carriers actually exploit: Gun-rights advocates have created a website and an iPhone app to track posted locations, noting any noncompliant signs they think they can ignore.

Exactly none of those were open carrying in public, all are in a vehicle. Transporting a firearm in a vehicle isn't open carry.

Anyways, yeah, the back and forth of carry laws with regards to private establishments sometimes gets out of line. I this case, it appears to be merely a case of the establishment having an unusually large number of doors, and the posting requiring English and Spanish posting of the policy at each public entrance.

It seems reasonable for me that signs be posted to make a policy enforceable. If I see a sign by the door saying "no guns", and I have a gun, no problems. If there is no sign, I could walk in without knowing that the owner doesn't want guns. I suppose one could object to requiring both english and spanish statements, but it's Texas, they have a fair amount of Spanish-speaking folk there, it's probably not too unreasonable.

Tyndmyr wrote:Exactly none of those were open carrying in public, all are in a vehicle. Transporting a firearm in a vehicle isn't open carry.

You asked if 'Does the supposed problem of "guy snaps, starts shooting those nearby' actually occur?"

The answer is "yes, frequently." The method that the weapon is being carried is incidental; the problem is that there are people walking (driving) around with deadly weapons who will use them with minimal provocation.

In regards to the issue of treating open carry individuals as a threat, a bit of anecdotal evidence of non-open carriers acting violently does not establish your perceived risk as rational.

Showing at least one example of open carry going badly would be a more convincing statement against open carry. If you want to be persuasive, some degree of statistics showing they present a significant risk would be better.

Tyndmyr wrote:In regards to the issue of treating open carry individuals as a threat, a bit of anecdotal evidence of non-open carriers acting violently does not establish your perceived risk as rational.

I consider all people with guns in their possession to be a threat. It just literally makes no sense to me why you would want to open carry except for the express purpose of being threatening. Judging by the reactions in this thread, that seems to be more or less correct.

Showing at least one example of open carry going badly would be a more convincing statement against open carry. If you want to be persuasive, some degree of statistics showing they present a significant risk would be better.

Tyndmyr wrote:In regards to the issue of treating open carry individuals as a threat, a bit of anecdotal evidence of non-open carriers acting violently does not establish your perceived risk as rational.

I consider all people with guns in their possession to be a threat. It just literally makes no sense to me why you would want to open carry except for the express purpose of being threatening. Judging by the reactions in this thread, that seems to be more or less correct.

A number of other reasons have been given in the thread by myself and others.

Showing at least one example of open carry going badly would be a more convincing statement against open carry. If you want to be persuasive, some degree of statistics showing they present a significant risk would be better.

No. If you'd read the article, you'd see that this article is critical of an open carry law. The shooting itself does not appear to have been a result of someone open carrying, and there is no evidence that the shooter was open carrying.

No, this is just people being critical of open carrying, and repeating your idea that if you get a crowd of people together, and a gun is there, somehow people will be shot. There is no shooting in the reported marches.

Firearm accidents at home are not a result of carry laws. Irrelevant to open carry.

Man dead after accidentally shooting himself when his gun fell out of its holster.

Doesn't say if concealed or not, as article is extremely light on details. However, it was holstered in a shoulder holster, which is almost invariably a concealed carry setup. Nobody injured other than shooter.

It's in the home, the pistol was in a concealed carry holster, nobody but the gun owner was injured.

You have done an excellent job of demonstrating why someone open carrying poses no threat to you. In all the examples you have found, only 1 out of 17 is someone open carrying, and creating injury to passersby. IE, the situation in which you feel threatened, seeing a gun in walmart or what have you. In the one comparable situation you have found, there is nothing to indicate that he went out open carrying, and then decided to engage in violence. It appears to be a planned shooting, and that the rifle was only exposed because he was intending to use it immediately.

This is probably not very comparable to someone with a rifle slung on their back while grocery shopping. It's the closest you've found, and it is unlikely that a law against open carrying would have created any different outcome, and it doesn't seem to justify your fear on anyone with a weapon.

I note that stupidity is a significant thread throughout these injuries, and that one could extend that to accidents without firearms. I suggest that a far more rational fear would be people ignoring obvious safety rules or otherwise engaged in dumb activity.

Statistics are hard to come by since open/concealed carry data is not normally separated, but carrying a gun increases your risk of being shot or killed by about a factor of four compared to being unarmed.

Yeah, causality's backward on that reading of it. People who feel they are at risk of getting shot and killed tend to get guns for protection.

Stringent signage requirements make a certain amount of sense in Texas, where the consequences for not noticing a 'no firearms' sign could be severe. Though the laws changed when open carry was enacted to bring it more in line with other forms of trespassing, so the signage requirements could probably be relaxed.

Alternatively, signage isn't actually required, the statute that defines what constitutes effective notice that carry of firearms is not allowed on a premises also allows the message to be communicated via cards handed to people entering the premises (IIRC written notice still has to comply with the verbiage of the signs, including both English and Spanish, but size isn't specified, and there's no reason the relevant language couldn't be included on a pamphlet or other handout that has other information about the space/organization) or verbally (specific language isn't specified by the law for verbal notice). And signage doesn't actually have to be posted at each door. It just has to be in plain view outside each entrance. You don't need a separate sign for every door in a bank of doors for example, and the sign doesn't have to be on the door or the building itself, freestanding signs or signs posted on other surfaces are fine, so long as they are visible as you approach the entrance and comply with the verbiage and layout requirements.

Unless you expect people to psychically intuit when they're allowed somewhere and when they're not, I'm not sure what more you could ask for.

As far as texas3006.com and their app, they generally advise against ignoring non-compliant signage, both out of respect for the owners' wishes, and to avoid patronizing businesses that don't support gun rights. Noting non-compliant signage is useful though, it may be less visible or otherwise difficult to identify, so knowing that it's there, just non-compliant can help avoid violating owners wishes, or being verbally trespassed in the case of open carry (the entries for posted locations typically include a description of the signage and it's location, especially when non-compliant, which helps to spot signs when they're present)There's also at least one case where non-compliant (or even non-existent) signage still carries force of law, which is for bars (establishments licensed for deriving 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales on premises) which are required to post a specific sign as part of their liquor license, but carry is banned by law whether the sign is present or not. Conversely, some establishments that aren't licensed as bars may incorrectly post the bar signage, in which case it's unclear whether the establishment intends to ban firearms, or are just confused about the signage requirements of their liquor license (non-bar establishments licensed to sell alcohol are required to post different signage regarding carry of firearms that doesn't ban license holders). And another case where even otherwise compliant signage is unenforceable, which is for State and Local government/publicly owned premises, with a few exceptions, some of which, like bars, are illegal to carry at regardless of signage. And finally, there are some ambiguous situations such as amusement/theme parks and open-air (non-sporting) events, or locations that don't have signs, or don't have compliant signs, but do have metal detectors/security pat-downs, in which cases it's good to know whether the security allows license holders through or not (verbal notice is still enforceable, so if the guy manning the metal detector says no guns, then you can't legally bring your gun in). There are at least two major local events I know of that have non-enforceable/non-compliant 'no-firearms' signage, but the security at the gate allows license holders through.

I still have yet to see anyone open carrying outside of shooting ranges since the law passed. I suppose it may be more prevalent in other areas of the state, though my understanding from talking with other people is that even in the more 'red-neck' areas of the state it's pretty rare. At least so far, neither our streets nor our schools have been transformed into free-fire battle-zones by Open or Campus carry.

Roosevelt wrote:

I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

No. If you'd read the article, you'd see that this article is critical of an open carry law. The shooting itself does not appear to have been a result of someone open carrying, and there is no evidence that the shooter was open carrying.

"Police say an off-duty officer stopped a man who was openly carrying a weapon outside the venue. He was reportedly later allowed inside by someone with Power Ultra Lounge.

No, this is just people being critical of open carrying, and repeating your idea that if you get a crowd of people together, and a gun is there, somehow people will be shot. There is no shooting in the reported marches.

Except for this one.

Among those critics was Chief David Brown of the Dallas police, a force that lost five officers in an ambush, executed by a single gunman, during a march in protest of police violence.

The guy is a dumbass, but nobody died or was seriously injured per the article you cite.

And? Dumb luck that nobody was killed.

Again, no deaths or serious injuries. Also, nobody else hurt. A dumbass managed to minorly wound himself. There is no indication that this is a case of open carrying.

And? Dumb luck.

This is not an open carry incident. The guy was carrying a gun in a waistband without a holster. The only significant injury was to himself, though it was not life threatening.

It wasn't concealed. And again, only dumb luck that nobody died.

Again, not open carrying. Also, being a government agent, probably immune to any sort of gun bans. Also, nobody injured.

Except for this guy:

The bullet hit the victim in an artery in his leg, according to previous news reports. The injury was serious but the man will recover, said his attorney Frank Azar.

I note that stupidity is a significant thread throughout these injuries, and that one could extend that to accidents without firearms. I suggest that a far more rational fear would be people ignoring obvious safety rules or otherwise engaged in dumb activity.

Yes, of course. But that's the point. People aren't required to be trained to use firearms safely before they can own or carry one. I said this right at the beginning of this discussion as one of the reasons I find this concerning:

This is especially true since you basically need to assume that anyone carrying a gun is 1) mentally unsound and could use it at any provocation (since background checks aren't being done) and 2) has no idea how to handle it safely and could discharge it accidentally (since training isn't mandatory). This obviously isn't true of most gun owners, but you can't take the risk that it is of the one you happen to be dealing with.

No. If you'd read the article, you'd see that this article is critical of an open carry law. The shooting itself does not appear to have been a result of someone open carrying, and there is no evidence that the shooter was open carrying.

"Police say an off-duty officer stopped a man who was openly carrying a weapon outside the venue. He was reportedly later allowed inside by someone with Power Ultra Lounge.

Except where they specifically say that it was an open carry.

"a man". Not the shooter. You've established that one person at the event openly carried, and that someone else shot. It's only being listed because they're advocating for gun control on the basis of "too many guns". There is no link between the carried gun and any violence. It's just in support of "there were a lot of guns there".

No, this is just people being critical of open carrying, and repeating your idea that if you get a crowd of people together, and a gun is there, somehow people will be shot. There is no shooting in the reported marches.

Except for this one.

Among those critics was Chief David Brown of the Dallas police, a force that lost five officers in an ambush, executed by a single gunman, during a march in protest of police violence.

That's not an open carry march. That's an entirely different march, and the ambusher wasn't some random passerby who happened to be carrying a gun. Premeditated violence is an issue, but it's not the case that you were describing as being a risk from open carry folks.

The guy is a dumbass, but nobody died or was seriously injured per the article you cite.

And? Dumb luck that nobody was killed.

Again, no deaths or serious injuries. Also, nobody else hurt. A dumbass managed to minorly wound himself. There is no indication that this is a case of open carrying.

And? Dumb luck.

This is not an open carry incident. The guy was carrying a gun in a waistband without a holster. The only significant injury was to himself, though it was not life threatening.

It wasn't concealed. And again, only dumb luck that nobody died.

An individual firearms accident has a pretty good chance of not hitting anyone. Look around you in a sphere. The portions of that sphere occupied by people, at most times, is reasonably small. That's why there's so many accidents in which nobody is shot, or in which only the carrying person was shot. From wherever the firearm is/is dropped/etc, the carrier is most likely to be in the way.

If someone does something dumb and shoots himself, that is unfortunate, but it is not a large risk to you, unless you are the dumb individual carrying unsafely.

In total, there are fairly few lethal accidents(and a reasonably low rate of non lethal accidents as well. Firearm injuries are only about 2:1 to deaths). And the rate is actually decreasing. 824 was the peak in 1999, and in 2015 we hit 489(Numbers from CDC). This makes up roughly three tenths of a percent of accidental deaths in general. Of those, a majority(numbers varied depending on source, but majority is extremely safe) happened to the shooter/personal family of shooter. Largely at home. So, only a small fraction of this is an actual risk to you.

I can't break it out in more detail, because the CDC only goes so detailed, and it's a really small cause of death. There is no smaller risk listed in it's accidents breakout. For comparison, falls kill about 27,000 people a year, and motor vehicles kill 35,000ish.

Shit, the cops kill about as many people as die to accidents. If there's anyone you should be eying warily it's the cops. There are many fewer of them, so each one clearly poses a much greater risk of death.

A possible way into larger circles for gun rights groups would be civil rights and unfair treatment by those with undue/excess power (cops/racists/far right/nazis) on minorities. For example, cop was giving me a hard time, and I felt in danger for my life. Stood my ground and shot him. >>>cops that follow up with dead cop somehow don't shoot me dead*. Example 2, mosque gets death threats and harassment after Trump's election from far right activists/nazis. Mosque buys a bunch of scary rifles, and gives them to members. Islamaphobes show up, sees rifles, and runs away. Example 3. Charlottesville rally by Far-right/nazis gets violent. Counterprotesters shoot them because counterprotesters have a credible fear for their life cuz a nazi ran over a bunch of people. I don't see any of these scenarios as realistic. 1 happens the most, but I don't see how that ever ends well. Maybe example 2 or 3. 2 is more a fantasy since terrorists/islamaphobes strike when nobody is watching. 3 is the most realistic, but would be very morbid.

*you would probably be safer if you walked into a police station, and told them a cop died.

sardia wrote:A possible way into larger circles for gun rights groups would be civil rights and unfair treatment by those with undue/excess power (cops/racists/far right/nazis) on minorities. For example, cop was giving me a hard time, and I felt in danger for my life. Stood my ground and shot him. >>>cops that follow up with dead cop somehow don't shoot me dead*.

It's an angle they push, but it's also an angle they get flak for pushing. Historically, the NRA got into hot water for describing the militarization of government agents in a PR statement.

"armed terrorists dressed in Ninja black … jack-booted thugs armed to the teeth who break down doors, open fire with automatic weapons and kill law-abiding citizens.”

For context, this was in a statement about the actions of the government at Waco. Pres Bush tore up his membership card and resigned, and others also got angry. The sentiment is definitely still there in many circles, but this is in part a tension within the right. A goodly chunk of the right is very okay with a highly authoritarian government, police militarization, and wishes to take their side no matter what. Another chunk views this with extreme alarm, and sees possible dangers of overreach. This is the faction most likely to cite the need to keep personal arms as a check on government.

The NRA has members from both sides, and thus, the exact balance between those is a matter of some struggle, and various side organizations exist that have taken a specific side on the matter.

The former side was the side that *used* to control the NRA almost entirely, until the big '77 takeover, but they never entirely left. You're probably going to see most of the edgier political action here from smaller factions that are more united. The NRA's big, but they're also the mainstream for the gun rights movement, and that mostly means they end up with some sort of compromise position.

This also means the NRA tends to only challenge established positions where they are confident they can win, and set desirable precedent. Heller was notably not backed by the NRA until it looked like it had a shot.

They are less likely to back individuals like Rosas, who shot three cops in self defense. A jury ultimately sided with him, but he spent two years in court to get there, and they didn't bother to take him to the hospital after beating him down. Also, LOTS of police harassment. He didn't get any overt support from the NRA who tacitly ignored the issue while less notable gun-rights groups/news orgs/blogs rooted for him*.

Tyndmyr wrote:Pretty much everyone is a fan of education and safe storage. There are concerns that legislation on these can be used to quash legitimate usage, though. And I'd personally like to not be required to buy two locks for every pistol, particularly when I'm going to just drop them in the pile of unused locks, and put the gun in a safe.

Exactly. It's, once again, the NRA actively fighting any attempt, no matter how reasonable, to actually promote gun safety or reduce gun violence. That is their primary agenda, and they are willing to sacrifice any other principle, no matter what harm it may cause, to maintain it.

The NRA does the actual training on the matter. Clearly they care about safety.

The motivation here is, as mentioned before, with regard to restrictions designed to choke out gun ownership. This particular law includes penalties for not rendering a gun unusable anyone but the owner, even without any sort of other crime involved. So, someone using your firearm when you're not home to defend themselves makes you a criminal. Or you had a gun stolen, and didn't notice it rapidly enough to report it before it happened, and again...you're on the hook. This latter case is true even if you DID store it safely. It's penalizing legitimate use in addition to misuse.

In case you think Seattle's not interested in that, the prior NRA/Seattle battle was Seattle trying to tax guns and ammunition in order to force gun owners to fund anti-gun research and advocacy. In context, they can be trusted about as much as pro-lifers insisting that sure, these laws might just happen to outlaw a fuckton of abortion in practice, but they only really care about safety.

Tyndmyr wrote:The NRA does the actual training on the matter. Clearly they care about safety.

Find me one example, anywhere in the country, of the NRA supporting a gun safety regulation.

This particular law includes penalties for not rendering a gun unusable anyone but the owner, even without any sort of other crime involved. So, someone using your firearm when you're not home to defend themselves makes you a criminal.

This is untrue.

This particular law wrote:It shall be a civil infraction for any person to store or keep any firearm in any premises unless4 such weapon is secured in a locked container, properly engaged so as to render such weapon5 inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Section 10.79.020, such weapon shall be7 deemed lawfully stored or lawfully kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other8 lawfully authorized user

(emphasis mine). A lawfully authorized is anyone with permission of the owner and who is legally permitted to possess a firearm. The court is also allowed to waive the fine if the incident happened under exigent circumstances. So this is not a concern.

Or you had a gun stolen, and didn't notice it rapidly enough to report it before it happened, and again...you're on the hook. This latter case is true even if you DID store it safely. It's penalizing legitimate use in addition to misuse.

You're required to report it within 24 hours of you noticing that it was missing. If 24 hours is too short, what time period would you consider reasonable to expect someone to report a crime?

That said, obviously, there are examples. Since 2012, over 600 state regulations have passed regarding firearms, two thirds of which were NRA backed. Generally speaking, NRA backed legislation does not advocate restricting legitimate ownership or use. They do support safety advances in other ways.

The hearing protection act is a fairly high profile example, as it happened on a federal level.

This particular law includes penalties for not rendering a gun unusable anyone but the owner, even without any sort of other crime involved. So, someone using your firearm when you're not home to defend themselves makes you a criminal.

This is untrue.

This particular law wrote:It shall be a civil infraction for any person to store or keep any firearm in any premises unless4 such weapon is secured in a locked container, properly engaged so as to render such weapon5 inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.6 Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this Section 10.79.020, such weapon shall be7 deemed lawfully stored or lawfully kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other8 lawfully authorized user

(emphasis mine). A lawfully authorized is anyone with permission of the owner and who is legally permitted to possess a firearm. The court is also allowed to waive the fine if the incident happened under exigent circumstances. So this is not a concern.

It requires the express permission from the owner. If the owner is not present and unable to give explicit permission, such a person is in violation.

It is true that discretion can allow a law to not be enforced in a case where it would be unjust, but that's a shitty reason for passing bad laws. The only lenience permitted by the law itself is sentencing to community service instead of a fine, when the owner can show good cause.

Now, if it was "did not have express permission AND committed a crime", that might be fair play. But since a crime is not required to be in violation, someone merely possessing a firearm while the owner is away is potentially an issue.

They are specifically redefining the term "lawfully authorized user" to mean something far more restrictive than "someone who can legally operate a firearm", which is the normal usage.

There's also issues like requiring the specific locked device to be at the approval of the chief of police. What happens if the chief simply denies approval to almost all devices? This isn't really hypothetical, police approval has been misused a fuckton in the past. It's an issue right now for concealed carry permits in MD.

Or you had a gun stolen, and didn't notice it rapidly enough to report it before it happened, and again...you're on the hook. This latter case is true even if you DID store it safely. It's penalizing legitimate use in addition to misuse.

You're required to report it within 24 hours of you noticing that it was missing. If 24 hours is too short, what time period would you consider reasonable to expect someone to report a crime?

You are liable regardless of reporting. Yes, there's an additional thousand dollar penalty if you do not report within the window, but reporting does not appear to negate any liability.

In short, this basically requires you to implicate yourself. That's legally troublesome.

Non criminal. If you're punishing people who have committed a violent crime with a gun, cheers. The NRA and everyone else is on board with that. If you're restricting, fining, or punishing people who have not done any sort of violent crime, then obviously firearm owners are not on board with that.

This law has nothing whatsoever to do with firearm safety. It's about making it easier to buy suppressors.

It requires the express permission from the owner. If the owner is not present and unable to give explicit permission, such a person is in violation.

Express permission, legally, just means you have stated permission from the person. It does not require them to be giving you permission at that particular moment, just that they have done so. So if I give you permission to access my gun, you are permitted to do so until such time as I remove that permission. If somebody is in your house and accesses your firearm without your permission, that's theft and probably should be treated as such.

Essentially, it is requiring that the owner be aware of everyone who could potentially access their firearm.

There's also issues like requiring the specific locked device to be at the approval of the chief of police. What happens if the chief simply denies approval to almost all devices? This isn't really hypothetical, police approval has been misused a fuckton in the past. It's an issue right now for concealed carry permits in MD.

I'll grant that this is something that could be potentially abused.

You are liable regardless of reporting. Yes, there's an additional thousand dollar penalty if you do not report within the window, but reporting does not appear to negate any liability.

You are liable if the gun was not stored safely. That's... kind of the point of a safe storage law.

Non criminal. If you're punishing people who have committed a violent crime with a gun, cheers. The NRA and everyone else is on board with that. If you're restricting, fining, or punishing people who have not done any sort of violent crime, then obviously firearm owners are not on board with that.[/quote]

In other words, the NRA doesn't care about safety.

Anyway, firearms owners are very different from the NRA. There are a variety of things that are supported by firearms owners in general, but staunchly opposed by the NRA. For example, 77% of gun owners support universal background checks, and 54% of gun owners support full registration of firearms.

This law has nothing whatsoever to do with firearm safety. It's about making it easier to buy suppressors.

Suppressors were originally created as safety equipment, and that is really the only practical purpose they serve. The don't work like in the movies - they don't make your gun as quiet as a whisper. Really, the difference in sound is only about 20-40 dB which means instead of your shot being 160 db (which will damage your hearing quickly) it'll be reduced to 120-140 dB which will damage your hearing less quickly. People in the surrounding area will still hear the shots, and they'll still be identifiable as shots.

This law has nothing whatsoever to do with firearm safety. It's about making it easier to buy suppressors.

Hearing damage is a safety issue.

It requires the express permission from the owner. If the owner is not present and unable to give explicit permission, such a person is in violation.

Express permission, legally, just means you have stated permission from the person. It does not require them to be giving you permission at that particular moment, just that they have done so. So if I give you permission to access my gun, you are permitted to do so until such time as I remove that permission. If somebody is in your house and accesses your firearm without your permission, that's theft and probably should be treated as such.

Essentially, it is requiring that the owner be aware of everyone who could potentially access their firearm.

What if you've never asked, because you're not into guns, but then end up needing to use one?

Now, sure, the owner could solve the problem by simply lying and saying he gave permission, I suppose. But that's not great. We already have laws against theft. This is far broader than theft.

You are liable regardless of reporting. Yes, there's an additional thousand dollar penalty if you do not report within the window, but reporting does not appear to negate any liability.

You are liable if the gun was not stored safely. That's... kind of the point of a safe storage law.

You are liable in any case.

If the gun is stored unsafely, it's treated as if negligence were already proven. Yes, negligence has additional liability, but you are liable under this law even if the gun was stored safely, and you didn't notice it.

Non criminal. If you're punishing people who have committed a violent crime with a gun, cheers. The NRA and everyone else is on board with that. If you're restricting, fining, or punishing people who have not done any sort of violent crime, then obviously firearm owners are not on board with that.

In other words, the NRA doesn't care about safety.

Anyway, firearms owners are very different from the NRA. There are a variety of things that are supported by firearms owners in general, but staunchly opposed by the NRA. For example, 77% of gun owners support universal background checks, and 54% of gun owners support full registration of firearms.

If the only way you believe safety can be improved is by restricting and punishing non-criminal gun owners, then you occupy a position roughly similar to the anti-abortion crowd.

As to the rest, there are a range of views. The NRA represents approximately the midpoint of US views on the matter. There are more people and money further on the pro-gun spectrum from the NRA than there is on the anti-gun side.

We already have background checks. They're not super controversial. Even among gun owners, folks usually are okay with criminals, mentally ill, and so on being denied firearm purchases. The specific question asked, however, is problematic. There is absolutely no background check exemption for gun shows. There is for private sales. Asking about both in the same question muddles things somewhat. Gun owners are mostly okay with the current background checks*, and thus, the answers for both of them differ.

You could probably get a majority for getting rid of the private sale exemption even with questions separated out, though, even if the question is asked poorly. This is largely irrelevant to safety. We already have quite strict laws against straw purchases, after all. All it really proves is that folks may understand current law poorly. The gun crowd tends to be right wing, and is really big on law and order(sometimes too much so, depending on sector), so they don't mind additional penalties or restrictions for criminals, but do not want these things for themselves.

Certainly, one does not see people at NRA events, or other firearm events, advocating for more background checks than we currently have. It'd be about as popular as a MAGA hat at a socialist rally.

*Pew reports that about 72% of NRA members support background checks, for instance.

Tyndmyr wrote:If the only way you believe safety can be improved is by restricting and punishing non-criminal gun owners, then you occupy a position roughly similar to the anti-abortion crowd.

That's how safety regulations work? By adding restrictions and punishment for violations thereof which apply to everyone involved, not just those with a proven record of non-compliance.

To a certain degree, it's necessary. Like the current background check. Everyone's got to get one in most cases. This can mean a modest delay and annoyance. But so long as the impact is light on the law abiding, it's not too bad. The people denied are those with a criminal history, or who are otherwise at risk. Attempting to circumvent that protection is straw purchasing, and is highly illegal.

But banning everyone from buying a specific type of thing is a far higher burden/effect ratio in most cases. It might be justified where something is intrinsically unsafe, such as various forms of asbestos, where you can reasonably expect a negative outcome. This is not the case for firearms. Legally purchased firearms are statistically extremely safe, and that's not the route most criminals use to acquire them.

A great many safety laws work by punishing those who cause harm to others. Yeah, speeding tickets exist, but the punishment is fairly light(and the social stigma against speeding quite small, or non existent) compared to the punishment levied on a drunk driver who kills a family as a result.

Tyndmyr wrote:What if you've never asked, because you're not into guns, but then end up needing to use one?

It's likely that such a person would not be able to open the gun safe anyway, so it's probably a moot point. It's also a vanishingly unlikely scenario. Well, the situation where somebody breaks into your house and you defend yourself with a gun is already a vanishingly unlikely scenario. If you want to prevent this scenario from ever occurring, then you basically have to throw out the gun safe entirely, which goes back to my original comment on this point.

If the only way you believe safety can be improved is by restricting and punishing non-criminal gun owners, then you occupy a position roughly similar to the anti-abortion crowd.

Well, there's an important difference in that pregnancy is a life-changing medical event and a gun is a tool. Pretending that these are comparable is extremely disingenuous.

I believe that safety can be improved by regulating firearms, much like I believe that safety can be improved by regulating cars. You need a license to drive a car, which generally requires you to do some training or testing. You need to register your car. You need insurance for your vehicle in the event you hurt somebody or something. Cars themselves need to pass rigor safety tests before they are allowed to be on the roads. There are specific rules about where you can drive, how fast you can go, how you interact with other cars on the road and with pedestrians and other people around you. If someone drives your car and causes some damage with it, you are liable for the damages. You aren't allowed to drive drunk, or if you have certain medical conditions, or are using certain medications. Certain types of vehicles aren't permitted on public roads at all. Nothing here is controversial.

Well, it's regarding hearing damage from firearms, so it seems to be quite straightforwardly gun safety.

Tyndmyr wrote:What if you've never asked, because you're not into guns, but then end up needing to use one?

It's likely that such a person would not be able to open the gun safe anyway, so it's probably a moot point. It's also a vanishingly unlikely scenario. Well, the situation where somebody breaks into your house and you defend yourself with a gun is already a vanishingly unlikely scenario. If you want to prevent this scenario from ever occurring, then you basically have to throw out the gun safe entirely, which goes back to my original comment on this point.

From the very source you quoted, one in six gun owners said they had previously used their gun to defend themselves. So, not so unlikely.

The simple way to do this is to not hold the owner responsible for actions committed by others, unless he has been unusually negligent. Leaving the gun out loaded with kids around, sure. Leaving the home with the guns in the family safe, not particularly negligent. Even if the wife has the combo, but hasn't previously used guns or expressed any interest in doing so. Even if someone breaks in and steals the guns anyways.

One can provide safe storage incentives without punishing those who have done no wrong.

If the only way you believe safety can be improved is by restricting and punishing non-criminal gun owners, then you occupy a position roughly similar to the anti-abortion crowd.

Well, there's an important difference in that pregnancy is a life-changing medical event and a gun is a tool. Pretending that these are comparable is extremely disingenuous.

They are extremely similar issues, save from opposite sides of the fence. The approaches of the banners vs defenders are comparable in many respects.

I believe that safety can be improved by regulating firearms, much like I believe that safety can be improved by regulating cars. You need a license to drive a car, which generally requires you to do some training or testing. You need to register your car. You need insurance for your vehicle in the event you hurt somebody or something. Cars themselves need to pass rigor safety tests before they are allowed to be on the roads. There are specific rules about where you can drive, how fast you can go, how you interact with other cars on the road and with pedestrians and other people around you. If someone drives your car and causes some damage with it, you are liable for the damages. You aren't allowed to drive drunk, or if you have certain medical conditions, or are using certain medications. Certain types of vehicles aren't permitted on public roads at all. Nothing here is controversial.

If someone steals your car and you haven't yet noticed it, you are not liable for the actions of the thief.

Nor is your roommate borrowing your car, and causing no damages, something that would cause you to be liable for anything.

The rest of your pointless comparisons are, while I'm sure intended to point you how guns should be more regulated, merely a common example by which people demonstrate they do not know the current state of gun laws. We've been over them adequately already, feel free to go back and read the discourse if you like.

Avoiding damage to ones hearing while shooting a gun is an example of gun safety.

Tyndmyr wrote:What if you've never asked, because you're not into guns, but then end up needing to use one?

It's likely that such a person would not be able to open the gun safe anyway, so it's probably a moot point. It's also a vanishingly unlikely scenario. Well, the situation where somebody breaks into your house and you defend yourself with a gun is already a vanishingly unlikely scenario. If you want to prevent this scenario from ever occurring, then you basically have to throw out the gun safe entirely, which goes back to my original comment on this point.

Gun safes are great for storing guns that you use for hunting or other sports; they're pointless and actually a detriment if your purpose is self-defense.

As for the odds... all I can say is that when it's you or your loved ones that are in need of protection, the odds mean nothing. Home invasions and similar situations are rare; but they still happen. And when they happen, being armed (and capable of using whatever you have) can be extremely useful.

According to the DOJ there are around one million home invasions per year. That's one million examples per year of where having a gun and knowing how to use it would be highly desirable.

Tyndmyr wrote:From the very source you quoted, one in six gun owners said they had previously used their gun to defend themselves. So, not so unlikely.

Depends what the individuals mean when they are thinking of "self-defense" here. If it's "there was a black guy canoeing down the river next to my property, so I fired a warning shot at him to chase him away", that probably shouldn't count as self-defense, but some people may think it does (this happened to a friend on mine while he was on at a conference in Texas).

The simple way to do this is to not hold the owner responsible for actions committed by others, unless he has been unusually negligent. Leaving the gun out loaded with kids around, sure. Leaving the home with the guns in the family safe, not particularly negligent. Even if the wife has the combo, but hasn't previously used guns or expressed any interest in doing so. Even if someone breaks in and steals the guns anyways.

One can provide safe storage incentives without punishing those who have done no wrong.

I don't have a problem with this. This is more or less how I interpret that law to be read, but I'll grant that there may be some language in there that may lead to a more stringent interpretation. IANAL, so I'm just going with what I can see and what makes sense.

Tyndmyr wrote:If someone steals your car and you haven't yet noticed it, you are not liable for the actions of the thief.

In many states, if you are negligent in a way that could foreseeably lead to the car being stolen (say, leaving it idling unattended), then yeah, you can be liable. I would imagine if you didn't report the car stolen for an extended period of time and it was then used in the commission of a crime, beyond a certain point the police would likely be looking at you as an accessory or accomplice.

Nor is your roommate borrowing your car, and causing no damages, something that would cause you to be liable for anything.

If you give express permission for someone to use your vehicle, you as the owner are generally liable for damages it causes or any infractions (tickets, etc.) that are incurred on it (may vary state-by-state to some extent but that seems to be the consensus of Page 1 Google results).

The rest of your pointless comparisons are, while I'm sure intended to point you how guns should be more regulated, merely a common example by which people demonstrate they do not know the current state of gun laws. We've been over them adequately already, feel free to go back and read the discourse if you like.

Actually, my intended point is that regulations on personal property for public safety reasons are 1) very common, 2) not considered particularly problematic or burdensome. Guns seem to be a weird exception where even the most trivial or straightforward attempt at regulation is met with extremely vigorous resistance.

Legally purchased firearms are statistically extremely safe, and that's not the route most criminals use to acquire them.

Virtually all guns used in crime started out as legal guns at some point, rather by definition. I suppose it's possible that there's some criminal enterprise is just straight up manufacturing their own, but it's probably easier just to buy them via a proxy.

cphite wrote:As for the odds... all I can say is that when it's you or your loved ones that are in need of protection, the odds mean nothing. Home invasions and similar situations are rare; but they still happen.

When you're talking about public policy, considering the expected outcome is the only way to really deal with it in any sensible way.

I have various problems with the various counts of "these are Home Invasions" given the document (full of highly specific gems like how the presence/absence of a Native American/Alaskan head-of-household skews probabilities of various outcomes or sub-outcomes) says it can't even rely on a definite definition.

I have an idea of what a Home Invasion is, and yet all those classes (someone was present, someone was present and assaulted, someone was present who knew the offender) are all superclasses of my category. And the times when guns would have helped are likely diluted (e.g. the person at home was asleep upstairs when they had their TV nicked from downstairs - or asleep right up to the moment they were held down and assaulted).

LaserGuy wrote:I don't have a problem with this. This is more or less how I interpret that law to be read, but I'll grant that there may be some language in there that may lead to a more stringent interpretation. IANAL, so I'm just going with what I can see and what makes sense.

Gun advocates view the law extremely differently. This is a common approach by anti-gun folks, describing laws as safety things that just so happen to accidentally impose large costs, liabilities, etc onto gun owners.

This is why I made the comparison to anti-abortion folks. They use a similar strategy, in which they push safety regulation that just happens to, in practice, put burdens on the system in an attempt to destroy it. After a few such attempts, one can naturally expect the other side to scan any further proposed "safety" regulations proposed by the banners very critically for any possible abuse.

Tyndmyr wrote:If someone steals your car and you haven't yet noticed it, you are not liable for the actions of the thief.

In many states, if you are negligent in a way that could foreseeably lead to the car being stolen (say, leaving it idling unattended), then yeah, you can be liable. I would imagine if you didn't report the car stolen for an extended period of time and it was then used in the commission of a crime, beyond a certain point the police would likely be looking at you as an accessory or accomplice.

Nor is your roommate borrowing your car, and causing no damages, something that would cause you to be liable for anything.

If you give express permission for someone to use your vehicle, you as the owner are generally liable for damages it causes or any infractions (tickets, etc.) that are incurred on it (may vary state-by-state to some extent but that seems to be the consensus of Page 1 Google results).

You are ignoring the differences that are inconvenient to your argument.

Normal liability is a thing, regardless of car or gun. This is creating a new, far more stringent standard that would apply only to firearms.

Actually, my intended point is that regulations on personal property for public safety reasons are 1) very common, 2) not considered particularly problematic or burdensome. Guns seem to be a weird exception where even the most trivial or straightforward attempt at regulation is met with extremely vigorous resistance.

Many of those equivalent laws already exist.

"You aren't allowed to drive while drunk". Well, using a gun while drunk is also a crime. Even if you get a concealed carry license, you'll notice it comes with restrictions, and influence of drugs or alcohol is an obvious restriction. This is explicit, in addition to the usual negligence charges that come up if one does stupid things to hurt others while drunk.

In addition, you are banned from even purchasing a gun if you are a habitual drunk. So, the standard is more stringent than it is for vehicles, not less.

This is what makes your point ridiculous. It's everyone's point when making that comparison, but the fact that someone makes it immediately reveals that the person does not understand extant gun law.

The anti-gunners mispotray the conflict as over stuff such as this, using the phrase "common sense" to describe basically all their proposals. But in practice, there isn't any conflict over if drunks should have guns. They shouldn't, and everyone's been on board with this for forever. It's wholly noncontroversial, and is not an accurate portrayal of the gun rights issue.

Legally purchased firearms are statistically extremely safe, and that's not the route most criminals use to acquire them.

Virtually all guns used in crime started out as legal guns at some point, rather by definition. I suppose it's possible that there's some criminal enterprise is just straight up manufacturing their own, but it's probably easier just to buy them via a proxy.

Various numbers are tossed around depending on location. At one point, in Chicago, it was claimed that only 3% of criminals got their guns by purchasing them legally. That particular study is small, and only interviewed those in prison, so there may be sampling bias, etc. Areas other than Chicago may also exhibit different patterns. So, while I'm not holding up any one particular study as perfect, overall, it's obvious that very few crimes are being committed by those who purchase firearms legally.

Adding additional restrictions to retail/pawn/gun shows can only possibly affect a small amount of crime. You need to work on the criminal gun dealers(high overlap with drug dealers, incidentally), and on folks who are willing to provide firearms to their family/friends who are into crime. Both of those are already highly illegal. You can add harsher punishments if you like, but I think you'll hit diminishing returns there. At a certain point, adding another year on to the potential jail sentence doesn't matter. Someone who'll risk a decade in prison( a single count of straw purchasing) will probably risk a dozen years. Better enforcement is the logical conclusion if you want to actually reduce crime.

Yes, I suppose you could argue that banning legal gun sales altogether would limit the supply. That, of course, is exactly the thing the NRA and kin do not want. It isn't advocating for safe sales, it's choking out legitimate use altogether. It's also nigh impossible. The US has about as many guns as it does people, and guns last nearly forever.

Thesh wrote:https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

It's one million if you define home invasion as a burglary with someone present, and a quarter of that if you only count those with threats of violence.

I think both situations can be reasonably considered a risk, as any particular instance of the former can easily become the latter, and the resident doesn't have a good way to know in advance which it'll be.

Even a quarter of a million is a pretty significant amount. Given the number of households in the US, that gives a fairly decent chance of experiencing such a scenario in your life. They're not distributed evenly, either. If you have the misfortune to live in a high crime area, it becomes less about if you will experience crime, but when.

Sure, a gun won't help in all of these, but a desire to defend oneself is reasonable in the face of such risks.

I mean, there are a lot fewer house fires(about 358k/yr) than there are home invasions, and alarms don't fix all house fires, but you still ought to change the batteries in your alarms.